LOFFLAND BROTHERS COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WELDON J. ROUGEAU, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; RAY MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF LABOR; AND CECIL ANDRUS, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court's order remanding the case for final agency action is not a final order and therefore not appealable.
Loffland Brothers sought to appeal a district court order that remanded a decision by the Department of Labor to debar Loffland from federal contracts…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Executive Order 11246 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R. App.P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Loffland Brothers seeks to appeal an order of the district court remanding for final agency (Department of Labor) action a decision of the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), debarring Loffland from future federal contracts. The court stayed enforcement until the director of OFCCP gave his approval of the final administrative decision. This sanction was imposed for alleged noncompliance with Executive Order 11246, which requires affirmative action in the employment of minorities and women by federal contractors and subcontractors.
The question posed is whether the decision of the district court is a final order appealable under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We believe that it is not.
The district court’s order resolved none of the questions raised in Loffland’s petition for review. Rather, the court on remand sought only to establish what in fact the position of the agency is at present regarding Loffland’s alleged noncompliance.
The decision to remand is not a resolution of the controversy on its merits. Neither is the determination of collateral order ap-pealable under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). We conclude that the district court’s action is not a final order appealable to this court.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 873 F.2d 325 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
-
Mem'l Hosp. Sys. v. Heckler, 769 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1985)
-
Am. Haw. Cruises v. Skinner (D.D.C. 1990)
Authorities Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949)